Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EDT

It's bad enough to watch MSNBC and listen to the likes of James Carville and Terry McAuliffe use Michigan as a pawn against Barack Obama, but now we've got our own governor.

Speaking on the Clinton conference call Wednesday, Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm called for the DNC to recognize the votes of the 600,000 Democrats who participated in that state’s primary.

Granholm said that Clinton would lead the popular vote if Michigan’s votes were included. “That to me — that to all of us — should be a sign to superdelegates that she in fact is the strongest candidate to win the general election in November,” she said.

Governor ... please stop.

Represent the interests of the people whose state you were elected to lead, not the presidential candidate who you endorsed. This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if your loyalties are more towards getting a job in D.C. than it is in being governor, and also lends support to the widespread belief that Hillary Clinton -- Bill and Hillary, actually -- wouldn't bat an eyelash at destroying the fortunes of the Democratic party to win the nomination. It also makes it more difficult for those of us who'd like to see a solution to demand that it come without turning this state into a pawn.

It was the supers in MI who thought they were being so smart and clever and they screwed it all up. It is they who should not be allowed to vote in Denver. I don't care how bad they want appointments with the next admin.

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

It's hard for me to understand why someone smart enough to be Governor of Michigan can't get it through her head that this primary campaign is about delegates. There was no talk of the popular vote until Hillary fell desperately behind in the pledged delegate count. How in the world can Granhold be dense enough not to realize that counting the votes in an election where only one candidate was on the ballot would lead to the ruination of the Democratic Party? Banana republics don't even do that kind of stuff...

It's hard for me to understand how someone could miss the fact that neither candidate will reach the total number of pledged delegates needed to be the nominee prior to Denver, without the help of superdelegates. The popular vote is important to superdelegates, as it should be, as are a number of issues. And superdelegates are supposed to exercise their independent judgement on who to vote for, based on what they believe is in the best interests of the party. And there's no road to the White House for Democrats that doesn't go through Michigan, making the vote here important.

But superdelegates are actually not stupid enough to think that Hillary's "win" in MI says diddly squat about the popular vote. Stalin used to win elections in which he was the only one on the ballot. That didn't make anyone believe he could win in a truly democratic election.

and even some Obama superdelegates, and all seem very concerned about the way Michigan and Florida are resolved. They seemed to understand that the Rules Committee did not equally apply the rules, and that Sen. Obama chose not to be on the ballot (although the "don't change the rules in the middle of the game" meme was alive and well among the Obama supers).

The governor could have said, "I think the people of Michigan should have their voices heard at the party convention in August, and all parties should figure out a way to let that happen for the betterment of the entire party." Better yet, she could have kept quiet.

But, oh no, she went and legitimized every single time some blow-dried asshole goes on CNN or MSNBC and says, "she won Michigan," a statement that bends logic and objective thought in ways that could rupture the fabric of the universe.

I very much want to urge that the everyday citizens in Michigan, who cast their votes in January, that their votes count. It's one thing for the DNC to make a procedural move about delegates, and the power of delegates, and all of that. But everyday citizens, you'd better believe their vote ought to count. That's what we do in a democracy.

She then went on to make the point as to why Sen. Obama doesn't want Michigan's delegates seated, or their votes to count -- because he's playing politics with the votes everday citizens of Michigan.

In other words, she was playing politics with Michigan's Democratic voters
(4.00 / 1)

Think of this as a custody hearing, with the Tee Vee surrogates representing the two candidates as their two lawyers, and the Democratic Party as a whole representing the judge. We're the children, and right now we have no one looking out for our best interests. We should be able to count on our governor to fulfill this role, but last week, she instead decided to publicly throw her lot in with one of the two aggrieved parties and left us to fend for ourselves.

As is Granholm. My vote didn't count because some idiots in Michigan continued on their quest despite repeated warnings about what violating the rules would mean. There was no campaigning in MI, Hillary chose to go for power and twist the rules by not pulling out.

I voted in the Dems Abroad primary, my mom and dad did not vote because they were told it wasn't going to matter and their candidates names weren't on the ballot, my brother voted Republican as a protest and to keep Romney alive longer, and most others in my family stayed home. Some kind of democracy.
I'll echo what was said before--this is the Stalin kind of democracy.

My mom had a bumper sticker in the 90's--"I voted for Hillary's husband." Hillary has lost all respect from 3 generations of women in our family, and Granholm is well on her way.

Obama is not playing politics here, Levin and Debbie Dingell did in continuing to push a point after repeated warnings it would backfire.

Governor: Please remember that you are supposed to be representing us, not any presidential candidate.

Both Obama and Clinton agreed to not campaign in MI. They both agreed with the DNC that Michigan would not get their delegates seated, if MI refused to follow the rules.

Obama had his name taken off the ballot, as a result of the fact that MI refused to play by the rules.

(do I have this right, fellow bloggers? Is that how it went down?)

Anyway, it is my understanding that both candidates agreed with the DNC that if MI refused to follow the rules, then we would not have our delegates seated.

Then MI refused to follow the rules.

End of story.

Of course, now that Clinton is behind, she wants the change the rules. Does anyone notice a pattern here? Everytime it turns out that the rules didn't favor her, then she wants to change the rules, after the fact. Just like Texas. Her campaign agreed that the primary process in TX was OK. Then all of the sudden they didn't like the primary process in TX. After the fact. Why? Because they expected that it would be all over after Super Tuesday, so they did no planning for after Super Tuesday.

As each day goes by, I grow more and more convinced that if Clinton can't win, she would rather see McSame win than Obama. She continues to put her own selfish interests ahead of the interests of the Democratic Party. More importantly, though, she is putting her own interests ahead of the interests of the American people.

I very much want to urge that the everyday citizens in Michigan, who cast their votes in January, that their votes count. It's one thing for the DNC to make a procedural move about delegates, and the power of delegates, and all of that. But everyday citizens, you'd better believe their vote ought to count. That's what we do in a democracy.

You're wrong to assume that both candidates agreed with the DNC not to count Michigan, because it was not up to the candidates. And if you're going to advance the "follow the rules" argument, then we must also not seat the delegates from SC, NH, or IA.

The Clinton campaign never said that the prima-caucus process in TX was "okay," because again, it was not their place to give consent to any state's process. And their concerns were very valid, given the number of reports of voter fraud and intimidation on behalf of Obama supporters that took place at the caucuses.

This is rule Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention:

A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (The date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states ) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

And if you're going to advance the "follow the rules" argument, then we must also not seat the delegates from SC, NH, or IA.

This has come up several times from Clinton supporters, including, of course, both Xavier as well as Yvette--that it wasn't just Michigan and Florida who broke the rules, but New Hampshire and Iowa did as well, by moving their contests up even further, and therefore they should have their delegates stripped as well (I'm not sure about S. Carolina).

Now, it is true that Iowa and N. Hampshire moved theirs up as well. HOWEVER, I've also read that both states applied for AND RECEIVED waivers from the DNC allowing them to do so, in light of the fact that Michigan and Florida had essentially cut in line. I've even read that the Iowa Dem. Party stated that they would only move their date up if the DNC issued such a waiver (no way of proving that, of course, since they did issue it).

If this is the case, then IA/NH did NOT violate the party rules, since they were specifically given a special authorization to do so by the body which creates those rules.

In other words, Michigan and Florida cut in front of Iowa and New Hampshire, so IA/NH "told on them" to the teacher (DNC), who gave them permission to take their place back in the front of the line.

In short, yes, all 4 states acted like children, but that doesn't change the fact that what the DNC says goes in this instance, and the DNC gave IA/NH permission to go first.

So my question is, IS this what happened?

If so, the "IA/NH should be punished, too!" argument is nonsense. If not, that argument might hold some water.

My position on the DNC's handling of this issue is summed up by Ted Deutch:

It's clear that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida all violated the same rule and should be treated the same. But that's not what happened. While the rules designate a 50 percent delegate reduction, the DNC imposed the death penalty - a 100 percent reduction - on Florida and Michigan. Amazingly, the other "rule-breakers" got no penalty at all.

The DNC has chosen to waive the rules when it believes that it suits the DNC's purposes. If the DNC insists on treating Florida differently, then it should be reminded that its own rules establish a 50 percent penalty rather than the death penalty given to Florida Democrats. . . . Rather than continue this divisive debate, the DNC should simply return to the rules that it drafted.

The DNC Rules Committee thought that a complete reduction would cause both states to change their dates back, but that was not the case.

So do we follow the rules-as-written, the rules-as-defined, the rules-as-practiced, or another set of rules?

FL moved up -- a move that jointly approved by Democrats and Republicans (in terms of votes and what was said at the time).

SC Republicans said "no, we are the first Southern primary" and moved theirs up. (It's notable here that Democrats tied themselves to the SC primary, and that date is entirely Republican controlled at this time.)

All hell broke loose from that point with the first four states. A couple pieces of "all hell" are notable:

- MI tried to take advantage of all hell breaking loose to inject themselves ahead of the chosen four states.

- NH tried to take advantage of all hell breaking loose to inject themselves ahead of NV. Though NH was still the first primary in the nation, NH was pissed off that there were TWO caucuses before the NH primaries.

Ultimately, the Democrats blessed the early four and didn't sweat the ordering issue (insuring little racial diversity in those first couple of key primaries -- lovely), while blasting the states that tried to cut in ahead of the dance.

I was on that call, listening to Gov. Granholm champion our state's
(4.00 / 1)

interest, and making it very clear that the problems facing Michigan are very much the problems that are going to be facing the next President.

This characterization of Granholm using Michigan as a "pawn" is ridiculous, especially given the fact that if anyone was "playing politics" with this state, it would be Sen. Obama, who took his name off the ballot (and organized other candidate's to do the same) to benefit him politically in early voting states. It was also Sen. Obama who remained silent on the issue of a re-vote, after first endorsing the idea to reporters aboard his campaign plane, saying he would "wait for the legislature to act," even when it was very clear that the Legislature was waiting on both campaigns to give their consent. It was also Sen. Obama who said he would go along with what the Rules Committee decided, but even after the Rules Committee issued a statement which said they approved of the Michigan re-vote plan, he continued to stay silent.
Here's what Granholm said before the part you cite [rough transcript - my own]:

I very much want to urge that the everyday citizens in Michigan, who cast their votes in January, that their votes count. It's one thing for the DNC to make a procedural move about delegates, and the power of delegates, and all of that. But everyday citizens, you'd better believe their vote ought to count. That's what we do in a democracy. And when you count Michigan, and all of the states that have voted, Hillary Clinton will have won the popular vote.

Sen. Obama removed his name from Michigan's ballot. Why should Michigan.. why should Hillary Clinton be denied the votes, when Sen. Obama actually signed an affadavit that removed his name from the ballot? She chose to stay on the ballot--there was no requirement that he remove his name.

And, in fact, she was not the the only one who stayed on: Sen. Dodd stayed on, Dennis Kucinich stayed on. When we tried to re-do the vote in Michigan, it was Sen. Obama's campaign who objected to that. So, the citizens of Michigan, 600,000 of them voted and their votes should be heard, and when their votes are heard, she will have received more votes than any candidate in the race.

Sen. Obama removed his name from Michigan's ballot. Why should Michigan.. why should Hillary Clinton be denied the votes, when Sen. Obama actually signed an affadavit that removed his name from the ballot? She chose to stay on the ballot--there was no requirement that he remove his name.

Why is she taking sides at all? She's not supposed to be representing the interests of Hillary Clinton, or Hillary Clinton's Michigan supporters. She's supposed to be representing the interests of all of Michigan's citizens, and in this case, all of Michigan's Democrats (or, if you insist on an "open" process, all of Michigan's citizens who would ordinarily caucus with the Democrats.

She hasn't represented us since at least December 1 when -- after the DNC punishment of 100% loss of delegation and the candidate pull out (and all candidates by Hillary and some also-rans off the ballot), she could have called off the game of chicken and stopped threatening Brewer with his job and allowed the MDP to put forward a Delegate Selection Plan that would have passed muster. Had she done that, when thousands of activists were telling her to do just that, then Michigan's voice would have been heard -- on 7 February or sometime shortly after that.

Seriously, Jen, get back to pushing the environmental bills, this presidential stuff is out of your league.

it won't matter HOW you count Michigan - Obama will still have the nomination wrapped up by June 3 - all of the super delegates he needs. At that point you can count Michigan and Florida any way you want - it won't change the results. Realistically, Michigan and Florida will probably get to seat half their delegates, regular and super. Clinton will get half of Michigan's and the share of Florida's that she earned, but the result will already be determined. That is what makes a compromise possible - it will be meaningless, except to penalize Michigan and Florida so that the rules will be more likely followed next time.

Thank you so much for continuing the painful process of allowing us all to bludgeon each other and beat up on the Governor who who has been as far as I can tell breaking her back to pull this state out of a major Depression.

If you and all the other Obama supporters would just hold your johnsons for a couple months the primary will be over. But no, at every opportunity you need to remind anyone who disagrees with you why you are better at math, more of a liberal, more unbiased, more witty and more politically savvy.

Today

Obama played down any concerns that the long race for the nomination would divide the Democratic Party.
``The Democrats will be unified come November,'' he told supporters yesterday. Obama said the differences between himself and Clinton ``pale in comparison to the differences we've got with John McCain,'' the presumptive Republican nominee.

So what do you think can we stop bashing each other up on this site for a few more weeks? There is not a damn thing we can do about the MI delegates anyhow. (sorry emptywheel I think the powers that be are not listening)

If this constant crap flinging continues I am perfectly willing to banish myself until the primary is over. I will spare you from doing it ;) It is just no fun here right now.

now, i'm not so sure. it wouldn't surprise me. bill clinton, after all, never got 50% of the vote because of third parties and he understands how to play the game. and the clinton's lust for power is is insatiable.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's a year where nothing comes off the table. In other words, anything goes.

If you took the time to read the link you would know that the third party talk is coming from inside the clinton campiagn.

Unlikely? How can anyone discount any bizarre development in this strangest of presidential election campaign years? In fact, some Clinton insiders have been floating this very possibility. At the moment, a Clinton independent candidacy is viewed as an idle threat, designed to pressure superdelegates with a party disaster if they don't nominate Clinton. But when you look at the electoral college calculus, an independent run could represent a realistic path to the White House for Clinton.

The other alternative is that she will destroy Obama, which she does every single day, for the republicans and run in 2012. But why wait? If Obama is all bloodied up but she still can't win the nomination why would they rule out a third party run?

this is presidential politics and the prize is the most powerful position in the world. it's not a game of checkers.

So this third party watch guy says some Clinton insiders(whom he doesn't name) are floating the idea. Well I call bullshit. This guy needs something to write about on his blog and even he says the idea is bizarre. Come on lefty, get real.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

not some blogger. and it's my guess that the clinton's are really throwing this around on the inside as an intimidiation tactic with super delegates. but let's throw aside the third party stuff (i sense your condescencion against anyone different from yourself and your click).

This primary is no longer about delegates and the clinton's will not accept that it is. As i watch "This Week" on ABC, right now, clinton supporter,and fellow DLC member, Evan Bayh says it's all about popular vote (and of course, he's counting florida at least) and electability.

last week james carville, on larry king, said he agreed with Obama that Indianna was the tie breaker (he actually repeated it about ten times). Carville thinks they're going to win the popular vote there. Never mind Obama doesn't need to win the popular vote - he just needs his fair share of delegates. my point is the clinton's are redefining the rules and to them it's about winning - at all costs.

so great and brilliant michmark, take the time, if you can spare it, and with your ultimate wisdom lay out a scenario where Hilary clinton leaves the field in june without the nomination.

This is going all the way to the convention. and if she doesnt get the nomination, then what will she do?

I am supporting Obama at this time. I just find it very hard to take seriously the idea that Clinton would go third party. I doubt that she does leave the field, nor will Obama, before the convention, unless something drastic and surprising happens. It too close for either one to pull out. If she doesn't get the nomination by the time the convention is over I have complete confidence she will support Barack Obama. I would not be surprised if she ends up as the VP candidate(or vice versa).

By the way, what exactly is my click?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

and i don't care. you have the right to support who you want. my comment was only about reading the tea leaves to try and judge where the clintons are going.

as for the click stuff: your comment reeks of condescension towards me and anyone not in your circle (whatever your circle consists of). witness this

This guy needs something to write about on his blog and even he says the idea is bizarre. Come on lefty, get real.

I guarantee you I'm as real as you'll ever be and third party watch is a very informative site. don't dismiss the message just because of the messenger. This network of sites are fine sites. I read this site, kos and firedoglake weekly. but there's a great big world out there with lots of left, right, and center sites worth reading. and third party watch just highlighted some important information.

as for this:

If she doesn't get the nomination by the time the convention is over I have complete confidence she will support Barack Obama. I would not be surprised if she ends up as the VP candidate(or vice versa).

I don't think anyone believes there will be a "dream ticket" or that HRC will support obama if she loses. you are naive about the clintons and how they governed in the '90's. It's all about them. they destroyed the democratic party. where is your sense of history?

Clinton is doing one of three things; she's destroying obama to mud wrestle the nomination from him; she's destroying him to run in 2012 or she's destrying him to run as a third party.

once again presidential politics is about money and power. it's not checkers. and the clintons are playing for keeps. A third party run is not impossible.

Can you name a democrat who recently lost a primary, ran as an independent and won? I can - Joe Lieberman

that there is a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. I agree it is not likely to happen. I just said I would not be surprised if it did. I would be glad to make a wager that Clinton does not run third party though. And I would wager she does support him if she loses. How much? Don't know. Could be only lukewarm after everything that has gone down. Same for Obama.

Big difference between Lieberman running as an independent for the Senate and Clinton running for President on a third party.

As far as Clinton doing one of those three things you list, I would go with number one. If she does not get the nomination this time around I think she can forget about it in four years. IMO third party is impossible.

What did I say about how the Clintons governed in the 90's that I'm naive about? Or was that somebody else in my circle who said that?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.